The following is a modified thread I posted over on the SAAC site. Thought it might benefit members and viewers here. For many years we have taken note that we often find two versions of the sill plate labels. Of course this lead to many drawing conclusions based on their car or their experiences. This time I choose to go through my pictures, owners input and my notes to build a survey.
My findings and the results are displayed below.
First pictures of the two versions
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I went through all my current pictures and notes then noted if the cars had been restored or possibly had their sill plates replaced. Also ignored rebodied cars and modified (race) cars.
One thing that popped up right away dismissed the likelihood IMHO of the two/dual line versions being service replacements since they (expanded the search) since if these were only service replacements why would Shelby make a new design just for replacements rather than copy something they already had art work for. And if they were service replacements made available after production (example 68) why are they not found on 65, 67 and 68's also). Haven't found any examples of them on other years which suggests that they were a factory variation applied during the production year. That doesn't add up IMHO
Since I was using pictures that focused on the sill plate labels and those that did not I did not have enough clear close ups to collect important data points as to smooth or those created with a relief design on the surface and will leave that discussion alone for this survey
With all this I created two charts. One that shows what appear to be original sill plate labels and one that included "restored" examples hoping that many owners/builders would have chosen to reuse or replace the sill plate labels with what they found or removed during disassembly
What surprised me is that many of the restored examples fell in line and supported what had been reflected in the "original" chart and suggest IMHO that both emblems were used at the same time during much of the production year.
To me the early period (pre #400) is still in question since only a single possibly original finding anchors that group and the same goes in the over 1900 area.
Production period from approx #400-#850 was small and no conclusion can be drawn for that period at this time.
